UKC

I see Tory backbenchers and labour are demanding details of the Brexit plan before we commit.
Leave won by a tiny majority, and now they want a hard Brexit, AND control of how that is achieved.
It is the WHOLE of the electorate that should decide how brexit proceeds not just the leave side.
Therefore it is wholly democratic that parliament firstly sees the plans for Brexit and secondly gets to vote on them.

In reply to Root1:

Amen to that. A victory for the opposition, democracy and the people of the UK. Hopefully it'll stifle hard brexit.

In reply to Root1:


But how does this work? A plan for negotiations has to be along the lines of "if they say X we'll ask for Y, if they then offer A then we might compromise on B", etc. But then, is it really sensible to tell the opposite set of negotiators all of this at the outset?


So now you're suggesting that the above be legally binding? So how would this work? Parliament says to the government: you are legally required to obtain X. That means the EU says: ok, we demand £100 billion a year as the price of X, knowing that the government is legally mandated to agree.

I can fully understand why various people want to be in charge of the negotiations, and tell the government what it can and can't agree to, but it simply can't work. We have to give one team authority to go and negotiate.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


An outline of the priorities, red lines, and what might have to be sacrificed to achieve them would be a very good start


It can't be often that international negotiations are carried out without the sides having a fair idea what each other want to achieve, can it?

In reply to Root1:

Lets's make my comment concrete:

Parliament triggers Article 50.
Parliament votes for a soft Brexit, legally requiring the government to obtain a deal including access to the Single Market.

The EU then has the UK government over a barrel, it can demand anything at all as the price of access to the Single Market, so:

The EU says, ok, give us £100 billion a year as an access fee to the single market, and refuses to budge.

What next? Maybe the government goes back to Parliament and asks for more flexibility? Meanwhile the clock is ticking, and after 2 years we just crash out of the EU without any deal.

In reply to skog:


But we already know what they are, don't we? If the document is merely an "outline" (as opposed to anything with legal status) then there is no real point and no point in Parliament voting on it.


We already do!

The UK wants maximum free trade. While it may be willing to offer a high degree of freedom of movement, it doesn't want to agree to full single-market free movement rules. It certainly does not want to make a one-sided payment for a trade deal.

Meanwhile the EU wants to demand the the full EU free movement rules as the price of a trade deal, and ideally wants the UK to pay into EU coffers as well.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Irrespective, day one of negotiation they have us over that barrel anyway. I'm sure people are already working out the what if they demand this scenarios.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I don't. I'd be delighted if you could tell me, and tell me where you found out!


Are you sure this is what the UK wants, rather than what you want? And which bits are the priorities?


As the price of full free market access, yes. Not, as far as I'm aware, as the price of a trade deal.

In reply to Root1:

I think all the MPs should be shown a copy of the negotiation plans, red lines, strategies etc..

But, they must first sign a special confidentiality clause. Any leaks or discussion beyond a special room in westminister, treason - death penalty (you've got to add in decent incentive). A bit like when courts have to discuss something highly classified and go into a special closed session.

In reply to summo:

It's a good idea, but there's no way it wouldn't get leaked, and it would lead to MPs being above accountability to their constituents.

In reply to skog:


many of the parameters would be set by staff in advance, so when the big cheeses meet half the work is already done and people don't meet to simply discover both parties want something the other isn't prepared to accept. Which I'm sure is what should be happening now, even if it's not being said publically.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

How about a motion (hence not legally binding) such as "this house believes it is in our national interest for us to have zero-tariff access to the EU customs union, and urges our negotiators to get as close to that as possible" (or similar politico wordy bollocks, the sort of hot air BoJo is good at)

Hence parliament sets the target, our negotiators (when we get some) are free to negotiate, and everybody's happy. For a while.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Don't worry Coel. Remember God is guiding Theresa's path to Brexit.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


there is no reason why it should be leaked, even the press manage this when they get to see a copy of some big report, but can't mention it until a given time when the government make an announcement. If an MP can't follow the same code, read the plan, then vote according to their known desire of the constituents, then the UK has clearly been electing the wrong kind of people. Any leaks would treated as official secrets act breaches.

In reply to skog:


I meant that that's what the UK negotiating team will want (presuming the team is appointed by the current government).


So the negotiations will revolve around how much of a trade deal and how much freedom of movement etc. All of these will involve trade-offs and compromises. I don't see how that could be put in a legally binding document that Parliament could vote on.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


the problem is the EU will of course say you can have zero tariff, 'if' you have open borders.... but how open etc.. and then the negotiation starts.

In reply to summo:


What is there to be kept secret? I thought the peoples will (tm) would have been fairly easy for anyone to see.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


If it would make Parliament happy passing such a motion then, fine, it should go ahead and do so.

Of course the government and negotiating team would fully agree about the desirability of free trade and zero-tariff access to EU markets.

In reply to KevinD:


because in reality if the UK wants free trade without to open borders, it will cost. Either in Euros or in giving in to some other factor. The question is how much or what. Any limits that UK negotiators have will be critical knowledge that I'm not sure all UK MPs can be trusted not to leak.

In reply to KevinD:


I don't think it was - which possible solution do you think has majority support, and how can we know that?

I understand that a majority of people may want full border control, full free trade of goods and services, no contributions required, no obligations to follow the rules of the club, £350m a week extra for the NHS, and a free tapir for every household, but we're going to have to move on a little from that if there are to even be negotiations!

In reply to toad:

And it's going to be a Red, White and Blue brexit.

So it'll be fine!

In reply to Coel Hellier:

As a non-resident and with no plans to return to the UK what actually happens is no great concern of mine. However, the referendum was clearly a failure, a much clearer majority should have been required to trigger the UK's exit from Europe ( e.g 60 / 40 %) and not the 3.4% result, which although strong is hardly an overwhelming plébiscite. It would be a blessing ( probably to many who were ill informed and voted leave) that Parliament reject the referendum result and put the question to the electorate by calling a General-election.

In reply to Pyreneenemec:


A general election is a very blunt tool to base leaving the EU on. People vote for a government on a variety of issues, and a general election would give carte blanche to the winning side. I think it's the opposite of what we want. A parliament wide vote is much better in my opinion.

In reply to skog:


Its the PEOPLES WILL. Its as simple as that. Any questioning clearly shows you are a undemocratic traitor.
Dont you trust May not to accurately understand everyones will and get it into a single approach?
Before you answer that remember the new internet surveillance laws that she supported and have now got in.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Point is, we would at least have some sense of the direction the govt want us to go in. The idea that we have to keep our cards close to our chest is patently absurd anyway. What card do you think a negotiator could play that our EU counterparts are unaware of?

In reply to KevinD:


Hey, I'm a -democratic- traitor, thanks!


Good point. <rapidly closes several tabs>

In reply to Pyreneenemec:

under the UKs current system that might swing it more towards remain inclined MPs, given the numbers that voted for UKIP but it only has 1 MP. If it was PR then it might not change anything or make brexit more certain.

EDIT; after the recent by-election I don't think Labour or the Tories are that keen on another general election anymore.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Are you really saying that you don't?


What compromises and trade-offs we might be willing to make.

In reply to Root1:

As it seems to be largely accepted that Article 50 will be invoked this should be done as soon as possible (I am bitterly opposed to Brexit, by the way). It would also appear to be possible to revoke Article 50 (and I am amazed the UK Government has not sought clarity on this matter first). So a simple timeline would be:

Now -Mar 2017: Covertly figure out what you will negotiate (no need to publicise this as I will explain later)

Mar2017: Invoke A50

Mar2018: Negotiations must be completed. Ludicrously short time period to achieve this and thus honesty in what can actually be done will prevail.

Apr 2018: Ratification by the British public. A month to digest the current offer should be adequate. Ensuring a referendum on the deal means that any advance publication of strategy is not needed and thus we are not held to ransom over single market access etc. The ratification would comprise of two yes-no questions along the lines of a) do you accept these Brexit terms? and b) Do you believe the UK should leave the EU? Therefore is a is accepted we get Brexit and if a is rejected we can either revoke A50 and start again abandon the process based on the result of b.

Apr2018-Mar2019: Ratification of accepted terms by Eu states, re-invocation of A50 and resumption of negotiations or blissful happy EU-families.

Here's the benefit of this system. It's the economic uncertainty that will hurt both sides. The EU knows that if they take a hardline stance we will drag negotiations on for years. While this will hurt us too the opportunity to be punished for leaving will be avoided.

It might appear, as a remainer, this is engineered to allow a second referendum. It should also be recognised by Brexiteers that negotiations are best accomplished in secrecy and that, if it wanted, the EU could really hurt the UK. I think this would be a nice compromise - A50 gets invoked without further meddling but there is an emergency brake if the EU tries a fast one.

In reply to Pyreneenemec:


Ah, so it's the leave-voters who were ill-informed, not the remain ones?


When was the last time that government was elected on 52% of the vote?

If you're going to reject the legitimacy of a referendum on the grounds that it only got 52% of the vote, then perhaps we should also reject the legitimacy of the last dozen governments and all of the EU treaties that they signed?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Yes. The 3 amigos have variously come out in favour of a total withdrawal from the single market and customs union, reverting to WTO tariffs (which would be the same as the ones which we have as a member state). Hammond and May have persuaded Nissan to build the next model here but won't say how they did it or how much it will cost etc etc etc.

We the great unwashed have no idea what the objective is, and the longer it goes on the more apparent it is that the govt. don't either.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Which is because the EU is saying they won't agree any deal with access to the single market unless the UK accepts total free movement. Again, what the UK team *wants* is clear enough, but what we *get* will depend on negotiations with the EU.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


But we've pretty much been told they want it all, for nothing. That doesn't actually tell us anything.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


All sides were badly informed. However the out campaign was promising all things to all people.
How are the different reasons people voted out going to be reconciled. How do we know that what May fancies personally would have actually been voted for?

In reply to skog:


Isn't that the obvious starting point for negotiations?

Isn't that also the EU's current declared position?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Could be.

Is it too much to hope that there might be at least an outline of a route plan, too? Maybe some notion of where we'd like to go?


I thought the EU's position was that it didn't have one until article 50 was enacted. But regardless, I still want to know what sort of situation our government is actually trying to lead us in to - it's the UK taking the jump, where do we realistically hope to land?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I get the impression from your posts that you're happy to just leave and see what soprt of deal can be thrashed out - that leaving is more important than the details.

Is that fair? Or, if not, what would you want the negotiatiing team to prioritise? What gives you confidence that they will? And how should they decide the priorities?

In reply to skog:


Can you give us some examples of statements of such a plan, that you'd like to see?


Not really, it's more that I can't see any alternative. One can't bind the negotiators before hand, nor can one have -- as Nicola Sturgeon would like -- a whole team of negotiators in the room, all squabbling with each other and wanting different things.


I'd want them to prioritise some trade-off between free trade and control over borders. Neither is an absolute priority over the other.

In reply to Coel H : if It's obvious , say it. Actually what the uk wants is not obvious and what it's prepared to accept a total mystery.

In my limited experience of negotiations theres a lot to be said for going out early, and clearly saying what you want. The EU have done this , and it's also the status quo. Prevarication and contradictory statements will not help move the opposing side - I think the uk government is doing a poor job at the moment . If they are going to have a consistent story in early 2017 then Johnson et al. Should learn to keep shut my till then as every contradictory thing they say weakens the UK position

In reply to Coel Hellier:


But how do you define "willing" without parliamentary approval of what we are "willing" to do, that's the issue?


Similarly, how can you say that this is what the UK (or the negotiating team, however you want to define it) "wants" without asking parliament?

In reply to andyfallsoff:


The way the UK works is that the executive has authority to negotiate such things. Parliament can pass a vote of no confidence if it wishes to. None of the previous treaties with the EU were negotiated by Parliament (though they may have been approved by Parliament), and nor can this negotiation be done by Parliament.

In reply to wbo:


And they have. So far we've got as far as:

UK> We want free trade, with access to the single market, but not full movement of people (though we will readily negotiate some movement).

EU> No deal. If you want anything resembling access to the single market then you have to agree full open movement of people.

UK> No, we don't like that, maybe we'll go for trade under WTO rules then.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I agree. The skill of negotiation involves not disclosing your bottom line before you start.

The government is being put into a nonsense and impossible situation to do it's best for Britain by such calls

In reply to Coel Hellier:

But that isn't the whole picture. How does the executive know what broad aims are being sought? Throughout all of your posts you take it as a given that we "know" what the UK wants. I don't think we do, and given this will be one of the most important decisions this country will ever take, I don't think it is acceptable to just allow one person's assumption / interpretation of a single yes / no vote to determine that.

In reply to Trangia:



But how is the government supposed to find out what its bottom line is, without input? That's the issue here...

In reply to andyfallsoff:

You don't need to control the executive if you're happy to have arbitrary government. Heaven help that the judges should stand in the way of that ...

In reply to andyfallsoff:

I suppose it could be discussed in secret by the Cabinet, but it would be crazy to allow this to be leaked to the other EU members, and for this reason knowing how watertight government secrets are, it would appear to be unworkable in practice.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


The executive is deciding what *it* wants. That's how things work, we elect a Parliament which appoints an executive, and the executive gets on with the business of running the country. Thus the executive negotiates what *it* sees as the best deal. If Parliament has no confidence in the executive to do that then it can pass a resolution to that effect.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



It was always clear from the start that the two year timetable would put us in a very week position in terms of negotiations.
A tiny majority voted to leave anyway, so maybe that tiny majority should just accept the consequences of their vote ?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Sure. So long as the Bremainers and soft-Brexiters realise that if they bind the hands of the government too much then 2 years might expire and we hard Brexit with no deal at all.

In reply to Coel Hellier:





The UK can only leave once, there's no going back ! Such a decision ( after 40 years in the E.U.) is too important to be decided by a 2% majority.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Such a bad thing ? Just call the whole shambles off and carry on as before !

In reply to Coel Hellier:


But that's why this is such a stupid idea all round, isn't it. We've put ourselves in a position where one person decides the future of the entire country, then the best parliament might get is a "take it or leave it" - and the UK is in a hugely weak bargaining position because everyone knows we have to strike a deal in the timeframe.

And yet despite this, it is those on the Brexit side who keep saying we have the stronger negotiating position. Patently untrue.

Of course, the position might be different if Article 50 is revocable. But the govt doesn't want to argue that it is, and the only reason I can see for that is fear of p*ssing off the brexiteers - even though if we could establish that, we would have a better bargaining position. How is that acting in the best interests of the country?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well, for starters - is ending EC free movement a red line? Is being part of the single market more important? Are we willing to scupper the rights of UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens in the UK?

Just, what are we actually hoping to achieve, and what are we willing to sacrifice to get it? And how have they decided what to prioritise, given that people haven't had a chance to vote on that - either as part of the referendum, or in a general election (this government is nothing like the one that got elected).


Surely that can't be right? No red lines, no must haves, no strong priorities?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

At which point the brexiteers might realise this was all a really dumb idea, and may want to reconsider. And I think the EU would probably let us back in, one day.

Personally I'd rather see a hard brexit than huge powers being handed over to the executive. Rather odd that many brexiteers seem to not agree with me given that they supposedly are the champions of parliamentary sovereignty....

In reply to skog:


I don't think we can have red lines and must haves, no. We need to find out what the price would be, before deciding something is a "must have".

For example, some people would want access to the single market to be a "must have", that the government is legally mandated to obtain.

In which case the EU can say, ok then, we demand £100 billion a year as the price.

At which point the UK team needs to be able to say "no thanks" to that deal.

In reply to Coel Hellier:





But Coel - the UK hasn't said what it wants,or sees as an end . It's said lots of different things, frequently contradictory, and it looks like fishing to me.

While it's unwise to detail your red line, or indeed how red that line is, you do need a coherent starting point and objectives and that should be ok'd by parliament. You need to leave your negotiators to get on with it, but you don't want them to come back with something completely unacceptable as parliament need to approve this.

In reply to Coel Hellier:





Nobody says government should be bound to accept whatever conditions is put to them.
Simply asking for them to set out their objectives.

Surely, if the government was setting out in the negotiations prepared to pay any price for the single market, it wouldn't satisfy brexiteers either.

In reply to wbo:


Not formally, no, but then Article 50 has not been triggered yet. But I'm just amazed that anyone is seriously trying to maintain that we don't know what the UK government would like from the negotiations. For example, as I said:

"UK> We want free trade, with access to the single market, but not full movement of people (though we will readily negotiate some movement)."

In reply to RomTheBear:


Sure, no problem. I'm sure May will be happy to tell you her wish list. I'm pretty sure of what would be on it. (See previous comment.)

Tne whole problem is the referendum was a binary choice. In or Out.

No one was asked why they wanted in or why they wanted out.

4 guys in my office all wanted out for totally different reasons. They even had an argument amongst themselves about it this morning.

There are 38million reasons for being in or out. Currently all we know is we have to leave.

Get out, negotiate a base deal over important aspects, then over the next 100-200 years ha various governments tinker with the agreements based on electorate input through MPs.

That's what they all do quite well.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well no, we don't know anything. Only that they want the "best possible deal", or "blue red and white brexit".
The worry is that they may have absolutely no clue as to what is it they want, or disagree internally.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well no she hasn't said much.

In reply to Coel Hellier:





Upthread you said we already know what the priorities, red lines and what might have to be sacrificed. Now you're saying we know what they are but we can't have them?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Yes. A vote to remain would have meant carrying on as a member of the EU and single market, with power of veto over stuff we don't like in europe, like Turkish accession or an EU defence force.

A vote to leave has lead to .... "brexit means brexit" and "brexit will be red white and blue" Both hugely informative to the cognescenti no doubt, but leaving the less brainy a bit stumped.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


No, I said that we already know the priorities. But these have to be traded off against other priorities. If anyone is seriously claiming that they don't know what the UK government would like, if it could get it, then they simply haven't been paying attention.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


No, you said we all know what the red lines are - it's just up there ^ your response to skog at 10:36. Are you now saying red lines can be traded? Strange red lines.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


My comment did not contain the term "red lines", and was intended to relate only to *priorities*, which we do know. As I also said (just up thread): "I don't think we can have red lines and must haves, no."

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I'm awfully sorry for not determining your intention in this written medium. Now we're clear, no red lines.
Is leaving the eu a red line?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Knowing the priorities is frankly useless, unless we know the price the government is prepared to accept for them.
If the government came out of the negotiation with access to a single market, but at an exorbitant price, what would the taxpayers say ?

In reply to RomTheBear:


That's exactly the point I've been making all thread. That's exactly why these requests for the government to set out its policy are pointless. The negotiations will be about trading off priorities and prices, and that can only be done by negotiation.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Probably not, if the EU offered a good-enough deal to stay.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Such a blatant disregard for democracy! What happened to the will of the people and brexit means brexit?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


A reformed EU would likely be the most popular option of all, if it were on offer. Sadly, it won't be (though if votes in The Netherlands et al go the right way then who knows?).

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Actually, I'm fairly relaxed about leaving the government to get on with the negotiations. As long as it's understood that parliament gets to debate the proposed settlement and vote on it before we accept.

That is clear I hope.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


What happens if they don't accept it?

In reply to Ramblin dave:


If article 50 has been triggered we probably leave anyway and WTO rules apply.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


How do you know this? You seem to be mixing up your personal opinions with the will of the people.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Well we seemed to be talking about what deal the UK would get, but, to check I've interpreted you correctly, leaving the eu isn't a red line?

In reply to KevinD:


There was a "likely" in my sentence. But I am willing to bet that, were the EU willing to make compromises to appease some Brexit voters, then continued membership of the EU on those terms would likely (<-- note that word) be the most popular opinion of all.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


What exactly are you asking? Is it *legally* a red line? No it isn't. Does May's government regard it as a red line? Well, likely some of them do some of them don't.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Actually, they don't, because we are WTO member only through the EU customs union.
We would need to negotiate with WTO members, and they would have to ALL agree on our new tariffs schedule.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Yes, those are WRO rules.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I'm asking if you consider it a red line? Now we've had the referendum do we have to leave the eu. At 15:23 you seem flexible on the matter.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


So you dont care about the rest? This really is the problem with Brexit means whatever the f*ck it means.
As others have mentioned I think everyone has different ideas of what it means and quite a few people who voted out would be seriously pissed off if this was the case.

How do we know May is going to deliver the wishes of the people and what happens if the majority looks at her choices and think ermmmm, that wasnt quite what i had in mind?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_World_Trade_Organizati...


"As is typical of WTO procedures, an offer of accession is only given once consensus is reached among interested parties.[4] The process takes about five years, on average, but it can take some countries almost a decade if the country is less than fully committed to the process, or if political issues interfere. The shortest accession negotiation was that of Kyrgyzstan, lasting 2 years and 10 months. The longest were that of Russia, lasting 19 years and 2 months,[5] Vanuatu, lasting 17 years and 1 month,[6] and China, lasting 15 years and 5 months.[7]"

In reply to Root1:

Did I miss anything whilst I was asleep?

In reply to RomTheBear:

As I said, we'll have to play by WTO rules.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Me personally? Well, I'd be happy with staying in a reformed EU. (Reformed to be more a la carte, with opt-ins and outs for various policies.) All along that's been my personal preference.

I think it would be way better for the EU -- including allowing those countries that want to head for ever closer union at a faster pace to do so.

In reply to KevinD:


Quite a few people will be seriously pissed off by more or less any outcome of this saga.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I think it would be way better for the EU -- including allowing those countries that want to head for ever closer union at a faster pace to do so.

Yes, you as in you. Thank you, I wasn't clear on the principle, the details of any deal become irrelevant (because nobody will agree), but in principle you're happy to stay in the eu and the referendum was merely advisory.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I -- personally -- would be happy to stay in a reformed EU. But being a democrat I think the outcome of the referendum on membership of the EU *as* *it* *currently* *is* should be respected.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


You will need to elaborate on that. Since surely doesnt it depend on how much is retained?
I mean if someone voted out on the grounds of wanting controls on immigration but that is sacrificed to keep free trade how exactly is the outcome being respected?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


That would utterly defeat the point of the single market. The whole point is to have common rules to ensure a fair market space.
And I suspect the EU will not destroy their single market just to accommodate the UK.

In reply to RomTheBear:

You can have free trade and a single market without free movement. Indeed, other trade agreements manage that (e.g. NAFTA).

In reply to KevinD:


Yes, indeed it would.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I am curious as to whether Coel has the same approach to tax or similar matters.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Nope, they don't.

NAFTA is not even remotely as integrated as the single market. It does have a small measure of free movement to the extent of what's liberalised is relatively minimal.

You're confusing trade deals with single markets.
See don't necessarily have a trading relationship with the EU at the moment, we're part of the same single market space.

What you want really is a trade deal, but that has nothing to do with the single market. And obviously trade deals give lesser economic benefits than a single market.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


So, being a democrat, how can you accurately assess whether brexit will meet what those who voted for it are expecting?
There is lots of talk about the will of the people and democracy but I really cant see how it is going to work.
What happens if what May comes up with doesnt match the majority of the 52% expectations?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


That wasn't the referendum question though, was it? And "should"? Do you mean should be respected or do you mean must?

Are you asking about my personal preference (which is what the original question seemed to be about), or about the legal situation, or what?



Then they can vote appropriately at subsequent elections. This is how democracy works.



Do you have actual evidence of that, or is it just your ideology?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Is it just me, or does this all seem to be working up to be a massive f*ck-up?

If only some experts had told us it would be like this before the 23rd.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Not sure how that really applies to Brexit. Surely you should be arguing for a follow up referendum to reject the terms?

In reply to George Ormerod:


Its the will of the people. If you disagree you are an enemy of the people.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Your opinion (legally the referendum was advisory). Do you (I've put you because I mean you) think, as a point of principle, that because the referendum result was to leave that we now must leave?

In reply to KevinD:

It's funny, but the nation's favorite light-entertainment Xenophobe, and recently turned Trump Tromboner, Nigel Farage predicted at the time of its inception Article 50 would be impossible to implement. What a sage.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
"Then they can vote appropriately at subsequent elections."

by then it is Too Late to put right a disaster to the constitution, exactly why your comparison with a general election earlier was not worthy of your arguments in other contexts

In reply to Coel Hellier:

But what do the other parties get in return? If all the uk wants is access to the bits it likes, then it's a rather unfair agreement, and unlikely to be ok'ed. Right now the biggest bit we don't like is, I suppose, free movement, but give and take is part of the single market - ergo the four principles. This is the reason the notion of all countries opting into the bits they like is quite silly.

The EU is not just a charity to give jobs to Johnny englander!

And, no, I don't believe the uk knows it's negotiating position yet on the difficult parts. Obviously we want access to the single market, bank passporting, but the contradictions between ministers on immigration indicates uncertainty

In reply to George Ormerod:


What exactly did he say? Dont recall him saying that although would explain why he decided to f*ck off to rim trump rather than deal with the mess.

In reply to wbo:


Err, they get free trade. You know, the right to sell us BMWs, Audis, Citroens, Fiats, VWs, Peugeots, French wine, Belgian beer, and all the other stuff. They do, after all, have a trade surplus with us.


Sorry, you've been thoroughly brainwashed by Eurocrat propaganda if you think that an equitable free-trade deal -- we sell to you, you sell to us -- is somehow a one-sided charity.


No, sorry, it isn't. There is nothing at all to stop a policy of "everything about a single market other than free movement" (or, rather, still lots of movement, but with some restrictions). The only thing against it is EU ideology. It would be entirely practical and workable to implement.

In reply to KevinD:

If a group of people decide to flag down a taxi, but when they get in they can't agree where to go they need to get out again.

The conclusion isn't 'now we need to go to some random place' but that it was stupid to make a decision to get a taxi before you knew where you wanted to go.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


As per my previous answer. Yes, on a point of principle, given the referendum, we should now leave the EU as it currently is. But if some reformed EU deal were on offer, then that might be ok.

(And please everyone note that I was asked my personal opinion, so am giving it.)

In reply to Root1:


What you are asking for is to be the decision maker in the negotiations.

It a rule in a negotiation that you should only negotiate with the decision maker.
The logic of what you are asking for is that the EU negotiates with the EU Government knowing they are not the decision maker.
They will also know that the decision maker ( the MPs ) are likely to reject what they judge to be a bad deal, therefore the EU will make sure they give the Government the bad deal that the MPs want , to take back to the MPs (who will reject it. )

In reply to KevinD:

He described it as a trap designed to prevent countries leaving the EU. Back in 2014 or 13.

In reply to Jim C:


Asking for parliament to be, not some minister. There is a court case about this point wrt art 50 just now.

In reply to Jim C:

I think what people want is not to be the individual decision maker, but for the decision maker to at least be accountable to the people. For that to happen, you have to know what the decision maker is deciding.

In reply to RyanOsborne:


What, like an election you mean, rather than a referendum?

In reply to Jim C:




And that is exactly how many international Treaties and negotiations are carried out. In the US Congress has to approve trade deals with a 2/3 majority. The European Parliament and all the members of the EU have to approve new trade deals (which is how wallonia threw a spanner in the works of the Canadian deal). It is also how Thatcher went about her negotiations with the EU, and how John Major did after that.

Why is there such resistance to having parliamentary oversight over a negotiation which will define our relationship with our closest neighbor and one of the worlds largest trading blocks for the next 30 years?

In reply to RomTheBear:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.cityam.com/252313/brexit-fast-and-smooth-s...

In reply to RyanOsborne:

The leaflet that we all got, told us of all the possible drawbacks of leaving , and said the Government would implement the decision if we voted yes.
"This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide."

It did NOT say the Goverment will implement what the MPs want

Edit:- And it DID warn that a yes vote would take us out of the Single Market.
"Losing our full access to the EU’s Single Market would make exporting to Europe harder and increase costs."

So no one can say say we were not told it would mean leaving the Single Market, every household got a leaflet, and it was featured in newspapers, and on TV etc.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5...

In reply to Jim C:


Dont suppose you feel like pointing to the part of the EU referendum act which supported that? Since that wins over a marketing leaflet.


Shame Boris and co were claiming otherwise eh? All that talk about Norway, Switzerland etc.

In reply to baron:


Except he won't be the one deciding.
So far, the fastest a country ever joined WTO was over 2 years.

In reply to KevinD:

This was a government leaflet. Are you suggesting it was inaccurate and misleading ?

Are you suggesting they were inaccurate and misleading ?

In reply to Jim C:



Not the first time that a UK government promises to do something they can't actually legally do.

At the end of the day, if we had a proper remain campaign, with a well thought ouf referendum bill, and a proper leave campaign, with a clear brexit plan, we wouldn't be in this mess.

To a certain extent not having a brexit plan probably won the referendum for leave, as it allowed many people with widely different views about what it means to vote for it.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

In the UK there has never been any requirement to have a vote in Parliament. There is no question in law that the government have the power to sign treaties in general, no suggestion that the government ought to have to ask Parliament for authority in other cases. The people agitating are those who lost the referendum, many who have been in Parliament for years and saw no problem with the situation before now. They're suddenly claiming that Parliament must have a vote before changes to treaties, when they've never claimed it before, and it's quite clear they're doing it to try and prevent us leaving the EU in spite of the result of the referendum.

Seems pretty obvious why there's resistance to this.

In reply to thomasadixon:
Yes it's very obvious why there's resistance - the EU act of 72 is an act of parliament, not a treaty, and requires an act of parliament to undo. It.

In reply to wbo:


Don't you go bringing facts into this. Anyway, we want things the affect BRITAIN to be decided by the BRITISH Parliament...oh...erm...

In reply to Root1:
It's all over , bar publishing the 'plan'

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2352542/brexit-vote-parliament-article-50-how...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/07/brexit-article-50-mps-vote-supre...

Should we just pull the plug on the Supreme Court case , it means nothing now ?

In reply to wbo:

The case is on Article 50, a provision of a treaty, not an Act of Parliament (facts are worth sticking to, right Ridge?). May's already said that there would need to be an Act of Parliament to amend/repeal the 72 Act so there's no argument there.

In reply to Root1:

WE leave the EU stay in the EEA and keep the four freedoms. We pay whatever the going rate is, probably exactly what we pay now. The upside: we don't need to worry that Farage and his Ukipper shower are in the European Parliament regularly trailing our national reputation in the mud and we have European bureaucrats managing rules and regulations properly/adultly instead of having the likes of Ian Duncan Shit, Boris Johnson and Liam Fox , Rees Mogg etc ritualistically fouling everything up for the country they so profess to love.

In reply to Pete Pozman:
I reckon that's about the best of it. The Brexiteers get their country back and the illusion that they can now run it the way they would like (i.e. it's UK politicians not European politicians being told what to do by the corporate gods). The rest of us still have the really important benefits of European union (basically the 4 freedoms). And we can all hope our country survives relatively intact, socially and economically.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

So if you gave the people 3 choices

Remain in the EU

Brexit-lite (retaining single market access)

Hard brexit (fully leave)

Who would win?

You are a smart guy. You know very well this is not how you make decisions. Split in two, split in two.. then the minority win..

In reply to thomasadixon:


As facts are worth sticking to, people should not twist one of the 'four freedoms' to suit their own view, in that it is NOT freedom of movement, it is Freedom of Movement of 'workers' which has been twisted to justify anyone at all who wants to wander into other countries with no prospect of even a job interview.

In reply to Jim C:

That isn't true. While there are additional advantages for workers or those seeking work, under certain conditions any EU citizen can stay in any EU country indefinitely without working or looking for work there.

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/what-eu-freedom-movement

In reply to Bob Hughes:

because I think some MPs would rather the whole deal fails to prove a point, than have a good outcome for the UK. They are probably wealthy enough or have vested interests elsewhere to ride out the storm regardless of economic events.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


No, I mean like our elected representatives being given the chance to scruitinise and approve the plans that the government put forwards. I don't know why the government seems so scared of parliament being on board with their plans, surely it will strengthen their position when they go to the EU.

As I said above, an election is a very blunt tool to base the negotiations on, most of the tory voters I know didn't even want the referendum, or weren't even aware that it was in Dave's manifesto!

In reply to john arran:

to quote; "Any EU citizen can move to and remain in another EU country for up to three months. EU citizens who are students may remain for the duration of their studies, but must show that they have sufficient financial support for their period of study. Other EU citizens who wish to stay longer than three months must have comprehensive sickness insurance and prove that they have financial resources to support themselves."

in the first part you are a jobseeker and must have the means to support yourself. Or your parent nation continues to pay your benefits. In many countries this means no healthcare etc.. unless your E111 type thing is accepted.

In the later, the rule in some countries are pretty tight on just how definitive a health insurance scheme is and the amount of money you need to support yourself isn't small. Certainly in Sweden, you need comprehensive no holds barred insurance, £20k cash and evidence of accommodation just for a temporary residents permit beyond the 90 days, which allows you to get a personal number and access normal society. To obtain permanent residency without a job, then you need much more in terms of financial backing.

ps. your site is a little bias and doesn't explain just how hard it is to remain in some countries beyond the initial period.

In reply to thomasadixon:
True


This isn't true. It has been established since at least the 17th century that the Royal Prerogative is limited by domestic law - i.e. The government has the authority to sign treaties only to the extent that those treaties do not affect domestic law. The government does not have the authority to confer or withdraw Rights to/from the people.

Triggering article 50 does exactly that because it sets off an irreversible withdrawal from the EU. The Great Repeal Bill doesn't change that because 1. It is still only a Bill and not and Act of Parliament and 2. There are rights conferred to British citizens by EU law which by definition will be withdrawn when we withdraw from the European Union. For example, we will no longer be able to take cases to the European Court of Justice, or make complaints in front of the European Competition authorities.

None of the above was disputed by the goverment's lawyers in the High Court case - their argument was that when it signed the EC Act 1975 Parliament must have expected that the government would be able to withdraw by royal prerogative. That may have been a tactical error but it is interesting that the argument you are making is not the argument that was made by the government in November.

>They're suddenly claiming that Parliament must have a vote before changes to treaties, when they've never claimed it

I don't think i've seen any claims that Parliament must have a vote on all treaties...just on triggering Article 50.


That may well be the case but given that the majority of MPs voted yesterday not to vote against the result of the referendum, and yet many of those same MPs believe that Parliament should have oversight maybe they really do believe that withdrawing from the EU is too big a deal to be left solely to the government.

[edited for clarity]

In reply to summo:


It may be that some MPs would like that, but yesterday's vote suggests that by far the majority don't.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

I looked in horror at the pictures/televising of the Supreme Court. Talk about not being reflective of UK society.When the cameras pan back all you can see is a room stuffed full of white haired older men ( I counted a coupe of woman ,one of the judges and then Gina Miller) in the entire room.This includes the judges, and all the lawyers.

If ever there was a symbol of something wrong in the establishment it was that room.its a long time since I have seen something like that in the UK. Usually its reasonably mixed across gender, age and racial diversity.

Appalling.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


So why no requirement for a vote in Parliament when Gordon Brown signed the Lisbon treaty? It's true as a general rule, but it has not applied to changes to EU treaties prior to now.


Triggering article 50 does not change any domestic legislation. The argument is that it will affect the operation of that legislation (agreed) and so the usual rules shouldn't apply here, even though they always have for the government signing EU treaties.


Perhaps I just wasn't clear enough. The argument is that as the government have the power, and as this was not withdrawn by Parliament, and as Parliament knew that the government have the power they were choosing not to restrict them in this case - the point being they would have to specifically restrict them here as usually there is no restriction.


Which is a vote on a change to a treaty, I agree there's no suggestion that it would apply to other treaties (that was the point, that this case is being treated specially, and it seems it's only because the opposing side want to scupper the result). Those bringing this case could have brought it before Lisbon was signed, for some reason they weren't bothered about that. It was okay to affect the operation of domestic legislation through changes to the treaties providing the change was in the direction of increasing EU power, now that it's going the other way it's not okay.


I think many felt that they had no choice, they're democrats and so they can't vote against the referendum no matter what they think personally. Good for them.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


only takes a minority to leak critical information to reduce the UK negotiating power though. I do think MPs should have a say, but there has to be some secrecy or kind of closed session. Perhaps party leaders and deputies etc.. but some of them aren't exactly totally trustworthy either.

In reply to neilh:

they are wearing wigs?

In reply to summo:


Nicola Sturgeon would regard herself as having a democratic mandate to scupper Brexit if she could. So, no, she would not be party to negotiating the best Brexit deal, that's not what she wants.

All the suggestions that Parliament should be involved or oversee the negotiations are simply impractical. How exactly would it work? Parliament voting on the deal afterwards is a different issue.

In reply to summo:


Not much of a secret...

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/12/06/very-quietly-liam-fox-admits-the...

In reply to summo:


I'm not sure what 'negotiating powers' you think the UK actually hold with our new found sovereignty ?

In reply to GrahamD:


the fact that the UK is one of the few growing economies in Europe, they would like some access for their workers, just as much as we would like to sell goods? The UK might even use some part of the UK fisheries as part of the deal to maintain trade... Who knows, both sides hold different chips of different values, a clean break with zero deal isn't good for either party. Only time will tell.

In reply to summo:

All you can see is alot of men in suits.

No wigs.

In reply to Coel Hellier:



I think there should be a rough outline of goals, red lines, must haves or no goes... shared with other party leaders under the strictest confidentiality. The other party leaders should also really have some say on deciding them, but that's where it stops. Once negotiations start, no weekly updates and certainly nothing in the public domain.

As you say once concluded, a full presentation of the deal on table and MP's vote on whether to move forward.

In reply to neilh:


I was jesting. Anyway, the shape of the top of UK's legal system is more a sign of how the UK's education or work places were shaped 40 years ago. The question is what do the demographics at the bottom of the legal system look like, how will it appear in another 20 or 30 years time at the top.

In reply to Jim C:


I thought the problem was Jonny, Pavel and Heinz foreigner coming over here stealing our jobs but now it's that they come here and don't work? It's too much, I can't keep up!

They'll almost certainly still be entitled to do that once we've left. If we're really f*****g stupid about this they'll be doing it on holiday visas and our tourism industry will take a massive hit.
jk

In reply to summo:


For reasons discussed up-thread, I don't think there can be red lines and must haves. It all depends on the price that would be exacted for them.


But then what happens if a party leader then goes public, claiming a democratic mandate for doing so? (As Nicola Sturgeon would do.) Are you then going to jail her?

In reply to summo:


Why on earth would they want their tax paying workers to be paying tax to us ?


I'm not sure what fisheries you think we magically gain from leaving the EU

>Who knows, both sides hold different chips of different values,

On this at least we agree

In reply to summo:


A clean break with no acceptable deal is far worse for Britain than for the EU plus there's the much underestimated value in deterring others contemplating this folly. That's worth a significant amount of pain to a fair few of the EU's current leaders. Much of what the EU potentially loses tariff free access to in the UK will simply relocate in the years to come anyway. We're over a barrel and we put ourselves there.
jk

In reply to summo:

20 years ago I would have run with that argument.

In reply to GrahamD:


They might not, but plenty EU countries have massive youth unemployment problems, if they take a job in the UK, they won't get the tax revenue, but they won't be paying them benefits either. A problem shared is a problem halved, or in this case moved overseas.


The UK waters are some of the largest in Europe. Which were currently share with the whole of the EU.

In reply to Jim C:


I am stating oddly enough a leaflet doesnt override the law.Otherwise May could just send out a leaflet stating that she was now supreme dicator.

In reply to jkarran:


I would agree, but EU isn't exactly steaming away economically at the moment, Italy is certainly going to change in the coming years politically, other nations probably too... the EU can't afford to lose even a modest margin of trade, it's barely afloat as it is. It is in everyone interest that deal is sought that keep both sides relatively happy.


if the EU had stable growth of even 2 or 3%, unemployment was declining rapidly, borrowing and debt declining too.. then the EU could afford to make an example of the UK, but it doesn't have that luxury. Everyone would lose.

In reply to KevinD:

I think that's either Merkel or Sturgeon. May has yet to earn that title.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
I think the issue of parliamentary involvement in setting the broad outlines of our departure from Eu is a necessary discussion in the light , not of the royal prerogative but in the light of devolved powers to regional states of UK . IT is untested as to how the royal prerogative now fits into the evolution of our constitution. THis is the court case to now establish this relationship . If prliamentary power wins out the devolutionary changes would now translate into a de facto Federalist approach to governement within the westminster parliament. THis judgement is not just about eu but about the way we decisde upon matters in our newly reconstituted uk.

In reply to MargieB:


Please give us some examples of "broad outlines" that you want Parliament to specify to the government. Would these be vague and advisory (in which case what is the point?), or specific and legally binding?

In reply to summo:


Everyone loses either way, we chose that and now we probably have to live with it. My bet is making an example of Britain is going to be given significantly more importance than we've been lead to believe and given the government has been backing itself into a corner over immigration curbs (a sore point for May?) the only real choice we'll be left with in two years time is a horribly isolating clean break and the decade or two of piecemeal renegotiation of our position in the world from a position of vulnerability that will follow.

My only real hope is that the public or parliament will be given the final say on the acceptability of any deal with remaining being the fall back position. Not likely. Most likely the harm is already done and we've set in motion a chain of events we won't be able to stop even when we want to.
jk

In reply to Coel tho not particularly so: - i dont see the point of the party leaders - the differences within parties are larger than those between.

Re. Fisheries - i thought most white fish came from outside the uk

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Advisory is not necessaessarily vague but advisory would seem to be the option when parliament discusses aspects of the eu. I don, t think secrecy has any advantages as the eu , as said above has a hardline starting off position too. However, it is important for ourselves, especially as the break up of the uk is also at stake thatthe approach is collective.

In reply to jkarran:


perhaps but they'd also be killing their own exports at the same time. Don't think most EU companies or countries can afford that. It won't help the EU survive long term and if the EU collapse or restructure then Brexit is pretty irrelevant anyway.

If you decide to leave a trade partnership 40 years after you joined it, when the world has changed massively, why should it become a matter of punishing a nation, doesn't that say as much about the EU and it's officials as anything else. When a European MP can go on global TV and say the UK must be made to pay etc...

In reply to summo:


Whatever we do won't kill exports of eg BMWs to the UK though, it will just make them more expensive for us.

In reply to GrahamD:


Which means they'd sell fewer, and so BMW would make less profit.

If the EU want to damage their own economies just to spite Britain then ok, but that's not the sort of collaborative entity I'd want to be part of anyhow.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


The referendum was only advisory, Coel. But you knew that.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


What's another few percent under WTO rules vs the damage we've done and yet stand to do to our currency. BMW's share of the uk market is likely to fall significantly either way.


If the EU's leaders want to make a point to the UK and their remaining members that the benefits of membership come with responsibilities that cannot be cherry picked then good luck to them. There's no spite required to understand or explain that. What's the point of a collaboration where you can do better from that collaboration by not actually collaborating?
jk

In reply to Coel Hellier:


By leaving the EU we have already damaged the EU economy. And ours.

In reply to GrahamD:


Why? What damage have we done? If people stop trading, then yes that will damage the economy of Europe, but it's not the UK that wants to stop trading.

In reply to jkarran:

The EU is willing to do trade deals with others around the world. Are you suggesting that they'll deliberately not give us a trade deal out of spite?

In reply to jkarran:

Is it wilfully that you're ignoring the significant rise in GBP vs EUR over the past 5 weeks? I cant believe you hadn't noticed. Markets tend to reflect best or worst cases in the immediate vicinity of an event or news story and then settle back to fundamentals. The UK should end 2016 as Europe's fastest growing economy despite the certainty of Brexit when, by the worst predictions, it should have frozen in shock. People will still want BMWs in the future because they're great cars. Cue joke about poor indicators

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Sounds like a possibility. Plenty of examples in everyday life or history of individuals or countries making poor decisions.

In reply to GrahamD:


Jings !
I missed that, when did we leave ?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


By making the EU less strong and our selves less strong. If all we and Europe want to carry on trading as we are then why on earth do we want to leave the EU to negotiate ourselves (at best) back to parity with where we are now ?

In reply to neilh:

So, you would appoint judges on the basis that, despite having demonstrated a lifetime of scholarship and eminence in legal practice, they had failed to go grey or show any other evidence of their age? Or would you have at least a quarter of judges teenagers on the basis of the ~25% of the population under 20?

Obviously there's an unfortunate bias in favour of men but that's because the pool from which they are selected is also heavily biased in favour of men (at least until fairly recently). You can't just appoint people as Supreme Court judges because they are part of an under-represented demographic, it's not a focus group.

Anyway they can't win, look at the stick the Master of the Rolls got for being 'openly gay'.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
I despair, I really do.

There was some reality TV producer on the radio panning the proceedings for being dull. It's constitutional law, for pities sake. It's never going to be riveting TV, but that doesn't make it unimportant. Damn right it isn't a focus group.

In reply to GrahamD:

Sometimes I think that some people wish that to be the case , (so they can say we told you so.)
Parliament has voted overwhelmingly to leave (even with the SNP contingent against) so now we need some unity.

About time everyone got behind the Government.
Who in their right mind would think that the Government not will go in there not to looking for everything we can get , for the minimal we need to conceed. , but for sure if we don't show a united front, it WILL be a certainty that the UK will not get the best deal.

In reply to GrahamD:


What does that means and how does it damage the economy?

Do you think there's some sort of law that says that larger agglomerations necessarily have better functioning economies? Well, the data show that a slew of smaller, independent nations are the ones with the highest standards of living.


Because we want to trade, but don't want many of the other aspects of the EU.

In reply to john arran:


Funny how Andrew Marr did not challenge Emily Thornberry the other week , when she proposed that very thing that we were interpreting the rule too loosely, and we could get 'more control' back by simply using the existing definition of freedom of movement of workers, and putting our own interpretation on it.

Edit What you are the rules for visits limited to 3 months, this is not the rules on workers wanting to reside beyond the 3 months.

In reply to Jim C:


It's pretty hard to be enthusiastic when it's a certainty it won't be as good as we have already.

In reply to Coel Hellier:




I have no idea what sort of a deal the negotiation will lead to

but i think that assuming we will get something close to our favoured outcome, because we think it is in the best interests of both sides, is a risky strategy

i relies on EU negotiators placing the same weight on different aspects of the process as we do, and i think this is far from certain. We seem to be prepared to consider prioritising opting out of freedom of movement over retaining tariff free access to the single market, if it has to be a choice, even if that has an economic cost. Our EU counterparts may in turn choose to prioritise retaining the 4 freedoms as a whole, instead of allowing states to pick which ones they want to adhere to, even if that has an economic cost.

I think there is no point crying 'spite!' at them if they do, or telling them they are wrong; they'd be making a political decision based on an analysis of the weighting they give to various competing factors, just like we will

And if they do, we can hardly claim they didn't warn us...

In reply to Jim C:


I'm sure there are, but most people just think it will be the case because by leaving we are diminishing the EU (slightly) as a trading block and ourselves greatly. But hey, we have our sovereignty back and now we'll be able to sell stuff to Australia which I guess we couldn't do before.


Er, do you read the Express or something ? what it has voted on is the time frame for Brexit. It never voted on Brexit itself.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


The Danes have a model where the government outlines their position to Parliament on the issues they consider to be most important. If there is no majority against those positions the have a mandate to negotiate. Their hands are not unduly tied because the government can negotiate terms which lie outside of the mandate but if they do so, they must go back to Parliament to seek approval.

So in your example further up thread, the government might say initially that they will seek access to the single market. If the EC puts a ridiculous price on that then the government would go back to Parliament and say "here it is: 100billion euros a week or no single market".

In 2008 Theresa May proposed the Danish model as the basis for a way to reduce the democratic deficit of the EU:

"As I said, the scrutiny reserve should be put on a statutory basis so that Ministers are required to come to the Committee before negotiations at the European Council and cannot override it. My proposal is based on the Danish model. I recognise that there are some rigidities in that model and that it would be necessary to give the Committee a degree of flexibility so that Ministers could set out a negotiating position before they went to the Council. I accept that it makes sense for those particular discussions to be held in private so that the Government do not give the UK’s negotiating position away. The minutes could be made public after the negotiations, however.

My proposal would work along similar lines to the Danish model, although, as I said, the Committee would need to recognise the occasions on which Ministers needed to be given a degree of flexibility. The system would also need to be backed by clear sanctions so that if the Minister broke the reserve—if he or she came to an agreement with the Committee and went on to negotiate a different position—there could be some kind of formal censure. The crucial thing is to put Parliament back in the driving seat and make sure that we help to reduce the democratic deficit by ensuring that Ministers are responsible and accountable in Parliament for the decisions that they take."

In reply to Jim C:

Sorry but that's naive, the incentive for the UK government is to get a majority at the next election, so that they can stay in power, not necessarily getting the best deal possible. Besides, there are widely different views as to what a good deal would be.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

That's really interesting. Remarkable how it contrasts with her actions (or attempted actions) in office...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Well sure, but that "4 freedoms" applies to EU members. Which won't include us. So what's that got to do with the negotiations?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

no point asking me, Coel.

EU representatives are telling them that these are important to them, and that as far as they are concerned, they will not allow arrangements where states can have access to the bits of them they want. Its all or nothing.

That may well just be a negotiating position; but then again, maybe they really mean it.

If they do, i don't think telling them we think they are wrong, and that they should interpret them the way we want, its likely to change things.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


This is an interesting read on the subject https://www.ft.com/content/37b5933c-b884-11e6-ba85-95d1533d9a62

(If it comes behind a paywall it can be read from cache here https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ww3Q9-f742wJ:https://...

In reply to BnB:

Not willful, I did have a quick look at the charts before posting but didn't pay much attention to the finer detail in the last few weeks. Looking now they've only really recovered from the 'hard-brexit looking likely' shock to around the post referendum average and I'm not sure that's on the back of domestic news. A lot has happened around the world in the last 5 weeks, there's a lot of uncertainty elsewhere and not much going on here until Spring next year. I'm not convinced recent rises in the pound have much to do with a strengthening outlook for Britain or even a rebounding toward a predicted long term continuation of the norm, rather they reflect a short term flight from greater uncertainty elsewhere post Trump. But then this isn't my field, I could just be wrong.


Probably temporarily with the sharp fall in the pound boosting exports from stock bought at a significantly different exchange rates. As increased import costs feed in those prices will rise or profits will fall and we'll be back where we were in the summer.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

The pound started to rise initially because it was oversold and then because the tide of hard Brexit prophesies began to turn, culminating in talk of a transition period and Davis' "pay for access" last week. Italy is now weighing on the Euro. The markets are expecting a sensible compromise where Brexit is concerned including extensions of the 2 year period for A50. I think you admitted you could anticipate the same last time we conversed.

It's far too soon for any rise in export orders to filter through to balance sheets and, in any case, it's in services, not goods, that we score. Hence the kerfuffle over passporting on the other thread.

I recall the wailing here over the drop in the pound and counselled anyone who cared to listen at the time that it was overblown. It pays to stay sanguine in matters of international finance. It's not as though we haven't had much practice over the past decade is it?

In reply to thomasadixon:

Sorry for the late reply, I missed your reply earlier in the day.


There was a debate in parliament on the EU Amendment Bill.


The argument, as I understand it, is that Article 50 sets in motion an irreversible process which ends with a change to domestic law. This is how it is described in the summary of TheBeat High Court ruling

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/summary-r-miller-v-...


No I don't think that is the governments argument. The government accepts that the royal prerogative is restricted in the sense that it cannot change domestic law. It's argument is that the EC Act 1972 is a conduit through which EU law flows to UK citizens. Therefore, by triggering A50 the government is not affectingly U.K. Domestic law, it is only closing off the conduit through which international law affects U.K. Citizens.


As above, there was a 12-day debate followed by a vote to enact the EU amendment bill.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


About as enthusiastic, as we were with David Cameron's 'deal'
If it had been a better deal I would have voted for it.

Whose fault was that?
The EU for misjudging the UK public mood, or Cameron for just being generally useless, untrustworthy, and not being able to sell the pig in a poke that he was sent back with?

In reply to Bob Hughes:


That's the claim by those bringing the case, yes.


I'm not sure where we disagree here. As I said above, triggering article 50 doesn't change domestic legislation.


Which was required to amend the domestic legislation, not to give the government permission to sign the treaty. We'd already signed the Treaty by the time the bill had it's first reading in Parliament. So in this case the equivalent is we trigger the article and then put a bill before Parliament - exactly as May said she would do.

In reply to thomasadixon:




The EU Amendment Act was part of the process of ratifying the treaty. Until that happened Gordon Brown, by signing the treaty, had only committed to a non-binding intention to ratify the treaty. The difference with Article 50 is that it is binding in that it sets off an irreversible process.

In reply to Jim C:



The Government is mostly a shower of opportunists being driven by semi intelligent nostalgia monkeys like Duncan Shit and gorge rising Gove. Why on earth would anyone trust them. I not only don't trust them I despise them.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

I don't see why they're necessarily linked, why do you think they are? We agree that in general the government have the power to make and break treaties, I think?


The other, crucial, difference is that it required a change to domestic legislation, and so that change following the usual rules had to go through Parliament, sending a note to the EU doesn't require any legislation.

The argument, as I understand it, is that as triggering art50 changes the effect of domestic legislation (not the legislation itself) even though it's within the prerogative powers it ought to go through Parliament. The counter to that is: Parliament passed the 72 Act which created a unique situation where UK law is dependent on a treaty; when Parliament passed this Act it understood the reality that the government could break that treaty; as Parliament understood that reality and chose not to change that, to restrict that power, it didn't intend to, it intended to do what it did. Therefore the general principle that Miller's side are relying on doesn't apply, as it doesn't overrule the clear will of Parliament. Do we disagree there?

Basically, Miller says the 72 Act doesn't expressly give the government the power to trigger art50 so govt doesn't have it. Govt says as the 72 Act didn't expressly remove the power from govt it didn't, and so govt has the power to trigger Art50.

Edit - and in the end Parliament still has the major check it always has over the government, it can remove it if it acts against it's wishes, so all this stress and continued, damaging, wrangling will come to nothing either way, except for point scoring. Either Parliament backs May and Art50 is triggered in March(ish) as planned (vote or no vote, depending on the court's decision), or it doesn't and Art50 isn't triggered (and May's most likely no longer PM).

In reply to thomasadixon:

They had the vote, the government won!
http://www.theweek.co.uk/brexit/65461/brexit-timetable-vote-has-theresa-may...

In reply to Jim C:



That is just a motion.

In reply to thomasadixon:
It's more significant than point scoring. It would set in motion a process of leaving the EU through cross party discussion and imput { the parliament} rather than through a single party poltical structure that is prey to all sorts of pressures { and far out views} that exist within itself. It woudld be our first foray in federalist parliamentary action. A process that will involve an attitude of compromise all round and inclusiveness- but that would be a positive aspect of our governance and might help us overcome the terrible divisions this issue caues within our cou ntry. Afterall, it's better than the punch up poltitics of other countries when faced with such sharp divisions.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


Has that actually been made explicit now? So far as I could see as an unqualified layman there was little indication either way whether invoking article 50 was irreversible or merely the start of a process that could be dropped at any point within 2 years from the date of invocation, or within an agreed extended period, or to the agreed conclusion of the process, whichever came sooner.
jk

In reply to jkarran:
My understanding so far is that the process concludes by ratification by the EU parliament of the agreement we eventually came to. So, I suspect the process is fluid up to that point. However, all sorts of political barriers prohibit a rash move to undo article 50 once it is triggered eg it would be political suicide to just over-ride a referendum. But it wouldn't exclude another referendum.However if circumstances in europe change then that fluidity is still there for us to respond to it. Is this correct?
I think our next worry is the nature of the R-EU organisation, if any, we will be negotiating with- given what I'm observing in the papers.

In reply to jkarran:


Well, this is an interesting point. Apparently Lord Kerr, who wrote the clause, believes it can be reversed. But the government has accepted that it can't (this is a matter of record), possibly to avoid having to get the issue decided by the European Court of Justice which would be humiliating (this is mischievous speculation). It is interesting because, if the government had argued that A50 was reversible they would be on stronger ground to argue that they can trigger A50 by Royal Prerogative. It may be that they prefer to support the position that, once triggered, A50 is not reversible to avoid two years of dithering and backtracking once it is triggered.

In reply to thomasadixon:


Because until the treaty is ratified it is only a non-binding commitment by the government that they intend to ratify the treaty in the future. And they couldn't ratify the treaty until the EU Amendment Bill had been enacted.


They have the power to sign all the treaties they like unless that changes UK law or the rights of UK citizens.


I think the key point is on whether A50 is reversible. If it isn't (which the government accepts) then triggering A50 will ultimately change domestic law (perhaps, as you say, it changes the effect of domestic law but not the law itself). This is different from signing a treaty which is a non-binding expression of intent.


We agree on your description of the arguments. The decision for the court is on whether Parliament did in fact make that decision. Eadie seemed to accept yesterday that if Parliament simply never made a decision on whether or not A50 could be triggered by royal prerogative then the government's argument doesn't apply.


Agreed


Well yes and no. I'm not what the outcome would be if the government were to trigger article 50 and then was removed by parliament for acting against its wishes.


I don't think this that is the case. Beyond political point scoring, it is important for there to be a debate and agreement over what kind of a Brexit the country wants. The electorate is not clear, with polls showing that most people want full access to the single market and immigration controls, something which the EU is telling us won't happen, and neither are MPs.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


That is definitely the key point and it is not one for the UK Supreme Court to decide because it is a matter of EU law. They should refer it to the European Court of Justice which has already said it expects to get involved. Unfortunately that will delay everything for at least a year.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
So we have to wait even longer to trigger article 50 further adding to the uncertainty that most people think is damaging to the economy.
Why isn't it already known whether or not it's reversible?
Didn't 'they' think this might happen or where 'they' so arrogant as to believe no country would ever consider leaving?
Anybody might think that the EU didn't want us to leave!

In reply to baron:


It's not the uncertainty that is damaging the economy it is the possibility of leaving the EU when our entire economy has been adapting and optimizing itself for being in the EU for 40 years.


Presumably because it is easier to get consensus on a treaty if you leave some stuff blurry.


'They' included us until recently. Half the things about the EU the Brexiters complain about the UK was in favour of when the EU made the decision - including expanding the EU eastwards.


Of course they don't. And when we joined we didn't want to make it easy to leave either.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


So this is where we disagree - why do you think this is the case? I think they could, and that the two actions aren't necessarily linked, one isn't dependent on the other.


It can't be key to the case, all parties are agreed it is not reversible (whether it is or not would be an interesting question, but both sides have settled it by agreeing on the answer).


Interesting question, I can't think anyone can know - it's uncharted territory and the current legal situation only tells you so much. Parliament can always change it's mind, would the EU agree to accept withdrawal of the notice? Probably?


Except that isn't what the case is about, it's about Art 50. We voted to leave, what "kind of Brexit" or in other words what trade deal we end up getting with the EU, depends on the negotiation, it depends on what is actually possible. It's accepted that triggering Art 50 means we will leave, it's accepted that trade deals are for the government to negotiate and sign and that they would be negotiated *after* Art 50's triggered. If those bringing the case win then Parliament would have a vote *prior* to Art 50, so before any trade deal negotiation has even started. There will certainly still be arguments in Parliament about the eventual content of the deal, but that's independent of the case and would have happened anyway as part of usual Parliamentary process.

I really can't see what winning the case actually achieves for those who brought it, other than they get to win and so feel happy...

In reply to thomasadixon:


Because the EU Amendment Act added the Lisbon Treaty to the list of treaties covered by the EC Act 1972. Until they had done this the Lisbon Treaty would not have legal effect in UK law. So if the treaty were ratified before having effect in UK law, the UK would be in breach of international law (ref: the foreign office guidelines on signing and ratifying treaties). https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/2...

The timing strongly suggests they are linked:
Lisbon treaty signed Dec 2007
EU Amendment Act debated June 2008
Lisbon Treaty Ratified bu the UK July 2008


Yes you're right - i worded it badly. Key to Miller's case is that A50 is irrevocable and the government has agreed.


Yes probably but it would be an almighty f*ck up and not a good fallback position.


Yes it depends on the negotiation and what is possible but before we get to the negotiation we should have a debate over what we want out of the negotiation. If you have the debate after the negotiation parliament is forced into accepting what the government negotiated against a ticking clock - the choice will be "its either this or WTO rules (probably)".


It means parliament gets to have some input into the direction of travel, priorities and red lines before the government gets into the negotiations.

In reply to thomasadixon:

I can see what it achieves for the Scottish Government. If their argument is accepted Theresa May will need to ask Holyrood to pass a legislative consent motion before going ahead. Holyrood will obviously refuse which puts Theresa May in the position of giving up on Article 50, making some massive concession to Scotland to buy consent or ignoring the Sewel convention, overruling the Scottish Parliament in Westminster and providing the provocation to justify a second Independence referendum.

In reply to Root1:
EU negotiators will offer Brits an individual opt-in to remain EU citizens, chief negotiator confirms

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-citizenship-keep-fr...

In reply to elsewhere:

Wow, that's great! I'd rather be a citizen of the EU than of the UK anyday. Sorted!

In reply to Roadrunner5:






Remain, obviously, but that wouldn't be a sensible way to do it. What you would be sensible would be to get people to rank choices in their order of preference and use the condorcet method to decide which choice won.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I think that the massive concession could only be another independence referendum.

In reply to hokkyokusei:


I don't see why Sturgeon would make that deal. She's far better off waiting for Theresa May to over rule the Scottish Parliament and then calling an independence referendum and daring Westminster to try and block it.

She might offer consent in exchange for a deal involving sufficient extra powers for the Scottish Parliament to allow it to maintain all the requirements to stay in the single market.

In reply to elsewhere:


It's a clever move. It puts the onus on Theresa May to reciprocate and allow EU citizens in the UK associate UK citizenship and a vote in Westminster elections.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I'm assuming sarcasm. Actually, I would much rather be an EU citizen than UK citizen.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I don't think it's a case of "either or". Plus, if you're succumbing to the current hysteria, becoming an EU citizen will result in instant deportation/internment/execution.

In reply to David Martin:

Er - you assume absolutely incorrectly. The day after the referendum I went out and bought an EU/GB car sticker, which they will have to tear from my cold, dead hands.

In reply to thomasadixon:


I really can't see what winning the case actually achieves for those who brought it, other than they get to win and so feel happy...

Why are you even discussing the court case?
They have already had their vote, and they voted overwhelmingly to to trigger A50.

The court case will only answer the question, did May actually ( in law) have to give them the vote in the first place.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/may-wins-parliament-vote-to...

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I don't think that is even in May's give to give such powers, and even if there was a possibility of that, Spain would block it.
So it's a non starter.

Edit May won the motion to trigger A50, even if she has to legislate on the final deal, the MZp's can vote against it if they like, but once triggered, the negotiations are time limited, so if they don't agree the government's negotiated deal ( however crap they think it is) , we will leave automatically as I understand it , when the time runs out and no deal is reached, that is, leave with the Hard Brexit that they did not want.

They will then be between a rock and a hard place, the court case therefore is an irrelevance .

So the important vote was the vote on the motion to trigger A50 thereafter it's a runaway train with limited track.
The MPs will be asked to pull the brake and approve 'the deal' or let the train run over the end of the track onto a hard Brexit.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


I'm being perhaps overly technical. Government can ratify and even if that does breach of international law if we like, that doesn't change the government's powers (guidelines are just guidelines after all, and the government write them). Good point re adding to the list though. I'd been thinking of it as mainly an amendment to the other treaties and so having effect that way.


They're certainly linked in that they were about the same thing, pressure was put on in Parliament to have long debates by MPs and as said there was a need to change some domestic law. Cameron's wish to hit Syria's a good example of what I'm trying to get at - if Parliament doesn't like what it knows the government are going to do it can put pressure on them, they forced a debate and a vote when there was no legal requirement for the government to give one and so prevented the government from acting. That there's been a debate and a vote on international action doesn't mean there must have been a vote, it means Parliament did it's job and made one happen.


The fallback position is WTO rules and whatever trade agreements we can arrange with others, we did vote to leave.


I think there will be more debates before it happens, and we've just had one and a (forced by Parliament) vote. For as long as May's government keeps the backing of Parliament (and I've always thought that's not certain) they get to decide what we want, that's their job. Parliament asks questions and gives/withdraws it's backing, it's the executive's job to make the decisions. If it makes decisions you don't like then you undo them when the government changes, although of course some effects are irreversible.


I just don't see how it does that. The decision of the court isn't about those things, it's much more specific. It's a sideshow being blown up.

In reply to Jim C:



They had a vote, the court is likely to be giving guidance on exactly what's required so we still need to wait for the decision to see if that's enough. Of course the government's lawyers are of course saying what you're saying, we'll find out who's right.

In reply to thomasadixon:


This is the key difference with A50. The government can sign and ratify treaties but without parliamentary intervention the most the government can do is put the UK in breach of their treaty obligations. Whereas if the government is able to trigger A50 without parliament, and if A50 is irreversible, they would be able to change the effect of domestic law.

Its worth noting that, since 2010, governments can only ratify treaties after they have been posted for the commons / lords to object.The houses can block ratification but not amend treaties. There are exceptions allowed, in which case the government has to publish a memo justifying why a particular treaty should be treated differently. It is a side point but I bring it up as an example of a limit to the royal prerogative to ratify treaties.


Cheers.


This is a convincing point.



I'm coming round to your view on this. I.e. (If i have understood you correctly) That Parliament will force a debate on A50 whatever the Supreme Court decides. I had previously understood your argument to be that there shouldn't be a debate at all and we should all just get on with it. And in fairness my previous view was that the only way to get a debate was through a supreme court decision - a view which you have convinced me isn't correct.

I still think it is more than a side show: the value in the High Court / Supreme Court debate is that perhaps it added to the pressure on the government and it also sets a precedent which redefines and re-clarifies the limits on the royal prerogative in future cases. If there had been such a debate in 1972, the case wouldn't have reached the supreme court.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

I must be misunderstanding this.this is how I see it, what am I missing ?

The government will now invoke A50
A50 is a time limited process
We carry out the negotiations, let's say we get 'a deal'
We then do or don't have a vote/ debate, or even have a Referendum on 'the deal'
But really nothing matters, as even if the 'deal' ( for a soft to medium Brexit) is rejected, the A50 time still runs out and the U.K. automatically then is out of the EU on the hard Brexit.
Nothing I have mentioned above can stop that, all the MPs can do is accept the deal, good bad or indifferent.

But , there is probably something I'm missing....

In reply to Jim C:



Doesn't matter. My point was that if it gets to the situation where the Scottish Parliament is asked for a Legislative Consent Motion then Sturgeon could offer it in exchange for sufficient extra devolution so Scotland can stay in the EU. Not because I think she would get it but because making an offer rather than refusing outright lets her position herself as simply defending Scotland's vote to stay in the EU. The outcome is going to be Westminster overruling the Scottish Parliament and Sturgeon calling a second Independence Referendum but the positioning going into the referendum is better for Yes.

And the Spain argument is still bollocks. Just like it was a couple of years ago.



That's the UK government's plan but it is not clear whether legally article 50 is a one way street. Various EU figures have said it can be withdrawn: it is probably for the EU court to decide.

In reply to Pyreneenemec:

a much clearer majority should have been required to trigger the UK's exit from Europe ( e.g 60 / 40 %

What was the required % majority required to take us in ?

In reply to Jim C:









That's exactly why it's important for parliament to debate the negotiation strategy in broad terms up front. The best deal for Britain will involve a series of trade offs since there are a lot of different criteria for negotiation (freedom of movement, trade terms, what happens to U.K. Citizens in Europe and vice versa, what happens to eu agencies run from the U.K., budget contributions, security cooperation, the border with Ireland etc etc). If the government ends up negotiating something which parliament isn't happy with, you're quite right, parliament won't have much of a choice but to accept it. Which is why we should have the debate now so that the government can go into the negotiations with an idea of parliament's priorities.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Scotland is only in the EU insofar as the U.K. is in the EU. The EU has already said that Scotland would need to apply for membership as a separate state. They might like to show some flexibility on this but I really doubt the Spanish government would let that fly.


Why do you think it is bollocks?


Yes the man who wrote the clause thinks it is reversible.

In reply to Jim C:



There wasn't a referendum on entry in 1972 but there was one on staying in 1975. It was based on a simple majority.

In reply to Bob Hughes:



Some people said one thing, some said the other and some refused to comment. If I remember right the political situation inside Spain wasn't completely straightforward. The nearest thing to an official statement was that Spain would respect the UK constitutional process i.e. if the UK decided to split itself that was up to the UK. This time round the EU will be far more sympathetic to Scotland staying in for the same reasons it is offering UK citizens associate EU citizenship.

In reply to Jim C:

A hard Brexit resulting from the expiry of the 2 year deadline would be an economic shock to the EU as well as UK, so the likelihood is that an extension or transitional arrangement would be worked out.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


That's right - Spain spent 10 months without an official government this year... interesting times.


The only way i can see it happening is if Scotland splits from the UK and accedes to the EU as a separate state. There isn't anything Spain could do against that other than vote to not let them join but that seems unlikely if Scotland were a fully separate state. There might possibly be some fudge where Scotland remains part of the UK but also retains membership of the eu. This would need the EU to bend the rules a lot and I am almost certain that Spain would block it because it would encourage separatists in Catalunya.

In reply to Bob Hughes:
Britain had been trying to join all through the political swings of the 60s - that we would join in the end wasn't so contentious and Heath's pro EEC intentions were long known before he was elected so the country had ample choice beforehand.

Simple majority to affirm a change in progress is not as inappropriate as a simple majority to implement major constitutional change

In reply to Bob Hughes:


So if it was ok for 50 % +1 vote to stay in 1975 , why suggest that we need to change the rules to meet 60/40 to come out?

In reply to Jim C:

Because major constitutional changes should require a substantial majority to avoid transient effects having permanent, irreversible,long-term implications. The US require this, for example, to change their constitution.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

I don't think the Government are in any doubt whatsoever what the priorities of parliament are. ( it's not as if they have been keeping quiet !)

Time to get behind the government and present a united front to get the best deal that we can.

There is absolutely nothing that I can see that parliament can do now.

They in theory, can reject 'the deal' if they like, but the government will simply need to let them dare to try and prevent the deal go through which would mean the hard Brexit that parliament does not want.

There is , I suppose, a possibility that the EU ( not wanting a hard Brexit themselves) will extend the negotiating time,but that would just play into the Government's hands, as they can then go back to the EU and say they need to give the UK a much better deal, or parliament will not agree it.

Parliament have been manoeuvred into agreeing to triggering A50, so it's really all over bar the shouting for parliament ( and there will be plenty of that!)

In reply to Jim C:


I think that question is for Pyreneenemec. I confused matters by answering your question about the previous referendum.

In reply to Jim C:



Really? I don't think it's at all clear

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Not to worry Bob, it was In a way a rhetorical question

In reply to Jim C:

Parliament could scrutinise any deal and if it is glaringly bad for us could vote a motion for an accept/reject referendum

In reply to wercat:



In reply to wercat:


All the cards are in the Government's favour, now that they are in control of the triggering A50.
It is a game of chess, and the Government have already worked out all Parliament's possible next moves, and they can see checkmate in all of them.
It might be checkmate in two moves or perhaps more, but the , result is now inevitable, the amount of time and effort to checkmate is the only unanswered question.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
That's the UK government's plan but it is not clear whether legally article 50 is a one way street. Various EU figures have said it can be withdrawn: it is probably for the EU court to decide.

And who would withdraw it?
Not the UK Government,and not the EU, so what then is the mechanism for parliament to withdraw A50 that the government triggered?
( with the agreement of parliament)

In reply to Bob Hughes:


Remainers want us to keep the cake.
The Government want to keep the cake - and eat it.

In reply to Jim C:

Is this _"Remainers want us to keep the cake.
The Government want to keep the cake - and eat it."_ really your answer to this _"I don't think the Government are in any doubt whatsoever what the priorities of parliament are. ( it's not as if they have been keeping quiet."_? Government are brexiters now Jim, tell them(us) what you want.

In reply to Jim C:


I'm afraid that's not helped

But starting tomorrow the House of Lords EU committee will publish 6 reports in 6 days with recommendations on eu citizens rights, U.K.--Irish relations, trade options, financial services and security cooperation. We'll still be none the wiser as to how much the government takes on board but it's a good start.
Edit : forgot the link
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/e...

In reply to Bob Hughes:


Agreed, the question is whether changing the effect actually requires a vote in this case. Actually changing the law, yes, and it's true that as you say government are restricted in various ways by statute, including quite recently when Art 50 was known of and a referendum had been on the cards for a while. If I were the government I'd be arguing that what that means is that they're not restricted here, if Parliament had wanted to restrict their power here they'd have done it when they changed the law in 2010. I think we agree that more likely they just hadn't considered it, and I agree that if they'd actually thought of it/discussed it clearly that would have settled the issue (and probably on your side of the argument). What's the actual law...no idea!


That's what I was trying to say, not that easy to say I guess, and thanks! With the huge remain majority in Parliament I think there was always going to be argument, it's necessary to bring people back together along a new line of thinking if you see what I mean - given that one decision is made what do we do now, what are the implications of it, and so on. I like to think of all of this stuff as being part of the wonder of our system, watch the events and a lot of it just looks like a mess, but amazingly from a historical perspective it all works and we end up with the country we have. Massive conflicts do get resolved one way or the other and live changes and moves on.


I agree it will have added pressure, I just think it's the wrong kind of pressure. It's a court case, so adversarial in nature and divisive. It's between Remain and Leave just after a democratic vote. It's one of those cases where the law is unclear so the judges (the establishment) effectively make the law, those judges are highly likely to be (and I believe were) remainers. Those bringing the case (or at least their supporters, also seen as establishment) definitely were/are trying to stop the UK leaving the EU. Add it up and the judges are going to be viewed as just following their opinions and their mates on the remain side, and the headlines were inevitable. Of course it's not up to them whether we leave or not, that's not what the case is about and it's being misrepresented, and I do agree that clarification is always useful. It's just the look of the thing, and the judges making the decision now have a really hard one. It seems like it will feel political whatever the result.

I think this is what May means by leave means leave, and that this is "the plan": We serve Art 50 with the logical back stop position of WTO rules, and in the two years we have to deal with the implications (EU citizens who are here, etc, etc). We will also be looking to set up new arrangements (with others as well as the EU), although as I understand it the EU position is still that they won't look at those until after the two years so WTO is theoretically the only option on the table at the moment for them.

I expect that will change when May triggers Art 50 (she has to keep her seat long enough first, and that will depend on assurances she gives/debates between now and then) and then the real wrangling starts, and I'd expect Parliament to make it's views known during that time and for lots of detail from secret negotiations to come out and be argued about . That's why I don't really see a vote before Art 50 as important, because it's just a trigger, the important detailed stuff won't happen yet (although things like the report you linked are good preparation, which we should be doing). Interesting times!

In reply to Jim C:


And which of those is actually the practical proposition, which a delusional fantasy?
jk

In reply to thomasadixon:

I think this has just about run its course. Thanks for the high quality exchange - I learned something on this thread.